President Trump seeks a negotiated deal with Iran to curb its ballistic missile program and regional actions without resorting to military strikes. This marks a shift from his earlier policies of pressure and aggression. Recent geopolitical changes may influence Iran’s stance, yet significant challenges and risks of military conflict loom over negotiations.
United States President Donald Trump is pursuing a negotiated agreement with Iran aimed at limiting its ballistic missile program and ending support for regional proxies, instead of resorting to direct military actions suggested by some hawks in Washington. This approach marks a significant shift from Trump’s prior policy of maximum pressure characterized by sanctions and air strikes against Iran seven years ago. Although a letter inviting Iranian leadership for talks was rejected, recent developments in the Middle East might set the stage for a new agreement to lift the 45-year US-led embargo crippling Iran’s economy.
Prominent expert Professor Mohsen Milani analyzed Trump’s motives, suggesting the administration believes Iran’s current position has weakened and is increasingly supportive of using aggressive tactics to achieve regime change. Professor Milani indicated that in Washington, there is a belief that the time has come to “finish the job” in Iran by either targeting nuclear facilities and military infrastructure or facilitating regime change. He emphasized that Iran is unlikely to concede on these specific demands during negotiations, as agreeing to such terms would be tantamount to surrender.
Trump’s previous term saw similar demands following the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, which offered sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for curbing its nuclear ambitions. Critics, including Trump, contended that the deal inadvertently bolstered Iran’s influence through its network of regional proxies. Now, changes in the geopolitical landscape, such as Iranian diplomatic outreach to Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, may grant Iran a stronger negotiating position with the US, according to Professor Milani.
However, negotiations pose significant challenges, as noted by former British diplomat John Sawers, who remarked that Trump’s direct negotiating style may clash with Iranian diplomacy. Despite potential common ground in the shared interest of lowering oil prices by reintroducing Iranian crude to global markets, the specter of military action looms over negotiations.
Trump’s willingness to utilize military options adds complexity to Iran’s decision-making, limiting its choices. Should Iran pursue both a nuclear deal and its nuclear weapons program simultaneously, it would create a precarious situation that could provoke military responses from the United States, potentially triggering conflict. Herein lies the danger; as Professor Milani noted, if Iran perceives a pathway through aggressive negotiation while continuing its nuclear endeavors, it may lead to significant escalation.
In conclusion, President Trump’s initiative to negotiate a new agreement with Iran aims to limit its military reach without direct military action. While there are potential opportunities for discussion, significant geopolitical dynamics and differing negotiation styles present formidable challenges. The risk of military confrontation persists, particularly if Iran attempts to manipulate negotiations while advancing its nuclear capabilities. The outcome of this complex situation remains uncertain, highlighting the delicate balance of diplomacy and conflict in the region.
Original Source: www.thenationalnews.com
